“Then we cannot validate your claim to knowledge regarding the inquisition.”
My knowledge of the inquisition did not begin or end with my dissertation. My research into the inquisition began at least 15 years before my dissertation was completed and did not end with my dissertation. Thus, the premise of your validation is invalid. Also, there is no logical reason to believe you would have the competency to validate any claim in a field you apparently know nothing about. Note: I do not expect the anti-Catholics here to have done dissertations on topics being debated. It would just be nice if they had ever read a single reputable book on the subject or even a single scholarly article on the subject, but, as so often is the case, especially with the inquisition, again and again, the response turns out to be that the anti-Catholic has never read even a single book or even a single scholarly article on the subject. Not. Even. One.
Then perhaps you could at least post some of the sources you used in the thesis you claim you wrote.
Then we all can make the determination if you used legit scholarly sources or did you just use biased catholic sources.
And to your general blanket statement that non-catholics haven't read up on the Inquisition you speak on another topic of which you do not know what you claim.
I did mine on the Mystery Religions. A Catholic on my committee would not let me include catholiciism ... but it belong in the category.
Of course, determining what reference works are “reputable” or “scholarly” is subjective. If one should arrive at a conclusion the debater disagrees with, then of course their arguments would be discarded. It’s curious to me how selective some can be when they have already decided what they believe about something - or what they won’t believe.